reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @andreas_nigbur

andreas_nigbur
Posted - July 22, 2026 at 9:06 AM
Saved - July 23, 2026 at 11:29 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I went from Google Maps to Google Books looking for “Tartaria/Tartary” and found hundreds of pre-1850 results: maps, encyclopedias, travelogues—an empire called Tartaria/“Great Tartary” spanning Eastern Europe to the Pacific. A 1771 Encyclopaedia Britannica even had a full entry, but by the 1880s it vanished. By 1900 it was renamed and erased—yet old books still exist online.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

YOUR PHONE KNOWS SOMETHING YOU DON'T. Now open Google Maps. Search for "Tartaria." Nothing. Search for "Tartary." Nothing. Now go to Google Books. Search for books published before 1850. Type in "Great Tartary" or "Grand Tartarie." HUNDREDS of results. Maps. Encyclopedias. Travelogues. Government documents. Military reports. Trade agreements. All refer to an empire called Tartaria—sometimes called "Great Tartary"—that stretched from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean and encompassed more land than any other empire in recorded history. The 1771 Encyclopaedia Britannica—the most prestigious reference work in the English-speaking world—contains a COMPLETE entry on Tartary. She describes it as the largest empire on Earth. She describes its cities, its population, its government, and its trade routes. By the 1880s, this entry had vanished. Not updated. Not revised. GONE. An empire that encompassed a third of the Earth's landmass was simply erased from the most prestigious reference work ever published. How do you erase an empire? You burn the libraries. You rewrite the encyclopedias. You redraw the maps. You rename the cities. You replace the population. You change the language. And you ensure that the next generation of children never hears the word. It took about 100 years. By 1900, "Tartaria" had become "Russia," "China," "Central Asia," and a dozen other names. The people were renamed. The culture was erased. The technology was confiscated. The buildings were seized. But they forgot the old books. The books published BEFORE their complete annihilation. The ones stored in university archives and private collections. The ones that have now been digitized and uploaded to the internet. You can delete an entry in Google Maps. You can edit a Wikipedia page. But you can't reprint a book from 1771. The evidence is there. It has always been there. You just have to know what to look for. Start here: "Encyclopaedia Britannica 1771 Tartary". 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica definition of the country of Tartaria 👇 https://www.facebook.com/TheDoctorregenerated/posts/1771-encyclopedia-britannica-definition-of-the-country-of-tartaria/967900115835713/ https://digital.nls.uk/encyclopaedia-britannica/archive/144133900 And then ask yourself why the greatest empire in history is NOT mentioned in your school textbooks.🤔 p/s First Edition, 1771 Encyclopaedia Britannica; Or, A Dictionary Of Arts And Sciences, Compiled Upon A New Plan... https://archive.org/details/1771EncyclopediaBritannicaNLS/First%20edition%2C%201771%20-%20Encyclopaedia%20Britannica%3B%20or%2C%20A%20dictionary%20of%20arts%20and%20sciences%2C%20compiled%20upon%20a%20new%20plan%20%E2%80%A6%2C%20Volume%201%2C%20A-B/page/n103/mode/2up

andreas_nigbur
Posted - July 20, 2026 at 7:09 AM
Saved - July 23, 2026 at 9:23 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m told “Grande Tartarie” appeared on every map before 1850 as the largest country, spanning Europe to the Pacific, then vanished in the next century without records. I point to Europe and North America architecture with “impossible” engineering, spires/domes said to be energy tech, and global “mud flood” burial from one event—evidence a previous civilization was deleted and its structures claimed.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

TARTARIA WAS REAL. AN ENTIRE CIVILIZATION WAS ERASED FROM THE MAP 200 YEARS AGO. Open any map printed before 1850. There it is. "Grande Tartarie" — the largest country on Earth. Stretching from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean. Larger than Russia, China, and India combined. On every map. In every atlas. Referenced in every encyclopedia published before 1900. Then gone. Completely. As if it never existed. No war of conquest recorded. No collapse documented. No transition explained. One century it's the largest nation on Earth — the next century, it's not in any textbook. An entire civilization. Erased. Not conquered — deleted. The architecture tells the story they couldn't fully erase. Every major city in Europe, Russia, and North America contains buildings that don't match their official construction dates. Massive stone structures with impossible engineering — built during periods when the cities supposedly had populations of a few thousand people with no industrial capability. The US Capitol building. The British Parliament. The cathedrals of St. Petersburg. The "World's Fair" buildings of Chicago, San Francisco, and St. Louis — structures so massive and ornate that they were allegedly "temporary exhibition halls" built in months, then demolished. Demolished. Buildings that would take decades to construct today — built as "temporary" structures and torn down. They weren't built for the World's Fairs. They already existed. The Fairs were the cover story for revealing structures that were already there — then destroying them before anyone asked who really built them. The technology was advanced. Free energy architecture — buildings designed to harvest atmospheric electricity through spires, domes, and antenna-like structures on every rooftop. The "ornamental" features on pre-1900 buildings aren't decorative. They're functional. Electromagnetic collectors. Frequency resonators. Energy distribution nodes. Every old building with a spire was a power station. Every dome was a frequency amplifier. Every "decorative" iron fence was a grounding system. The entire infrastructure of the previous civilization was an energy grid — free, wireless, unlimited — built into the architecture itself. They didn't just erase Tartaria from the maps. They disconnected the grid. Removed the technology. Capped the spires. Filled the basements. Then sold you electricity through meters and told you it was progress. The "mud flood" evidence is global. In every major city, the ground floors of old buildings are partially buried. Doors that lead to walls of earth. Windows half-submerged below street level. Entire first floors that are now basements. Cities worldwide show evidence of being buried under 4-15 feet of material — simultaneously. Not gradual accumulation over centuries. A single event. Global. That buried the previous civilization's infrastructure and allowed the current controllers to claim the buildings as their own — after digging out the upper floors and calling the buried levels "basements" or "foundations." The Great Reset isn't coming. It already happened. 200 years ago. A civilization was destroyed. Its people were scattered. Its history was rewritten. Its technology was stolen and hidden. And the buildings it left behind were claimed by the families who destroyed it. You live in their buildings. Walk their streets. See their architecture every day. And you've been told it was built by people with horse-drawn carts and hand tools. The largest country in history disappeared from every map in one generation. No explanation. No war. Just gone. The buildings remain. The truth is resurfacing. Look at any building over 150 years old. Look at the buried first floor. Look at the spires. You're living in the ruins of a civilization they deleted.

andreas_nigbur
Posted - May 1, 2026 at 1:16 AM
Saved - May 1, 2026 at 7:10 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Post 1: I claim NASA lost the original moon records, the tech, and lunar soil, so we can’t go back. Post 2: I doubt the LM’s stability; the display looks ridiculous; a 1969 computer via Houston couldn’t handle it. Post 3: AI notes LM tests used LLTVs on Earth; ascent was left behind, no Earth landing. Post 4: I insist Polaris is fixed; the “North Star moves” claim is false. Post 5: Domes are only for mosques/synagogues/churches; symbol on top; critique of religion.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

NASA, tired of numerous requests to show the "original moon landing records" said it had lost them. All 700 boxes. And the Americans can't go back to the Moon yet, because they lost the technology too. So today, when any smartphone has more computing power than all 1969 computers combined, NASA claims we can't go back to the Moon because we "lost the technology". Lost the technology to make spacesuits and all the individual ingenious solutions from unique radiation shielding, to ingenious temperature control. We lost the super-heavy launch vehicles, without which it is impossible to land on the Moon. We lost the ability and technology to manufacture them. They lost all the lunar soil (almost 300kg!) and now they are begging for a few grams of samples from other countries.🤔

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

The more people try to explain to you how THIS supposedly worked, the worse and more ridiculous it gets... The thing is supposedly on display in the NASA Museum. Anyone who sees this live and doesn't burst out laughing is seriously out of their mind... Now, seriously: This "landing module" has no control surfaces. It supposedly hurtles towards the lunar surface at several hundred km/h (probably even much faster) and possibly already rotating. Then you just fire up the central braking rocket at the bottom... And what happens then? Exactly. The thing would spin and tumble like crazy on all axes. Physics 100 points. And now for the best part: "But the computer controlled all of this with super-precise accuracy!" Yeah, right... with the computing power of 1969. Via radio from Houston. With a wildly rotating object traveling at several hundred km/h. Believe that, my friends!😉 A thing made more or less of aluminum foil. It's laughable and outrageous how stupid they think we are. They say it straight to our faces. They must be laughing their heads off when some naive people stand there in awe before it.😂 --------------------------------------------------------- ChatGPT's crazy response to the main channel teacher!😉 👇 I understand why this seems absurd at first glance. The thing really does look "cobbled together" and not like a classic aircraft. The misconception, however, is that you're imagining it like an airplane in the atmosphere. That's precisely what it isn't. Different rules apply on the moon: No air resistance → no control surfaces needed No aerodynamics → nothing "tumbles" on its own due to air forces Movement occurs only through engines (thrust) and angular momentum 1. "Several hundred km/h and then just brake?" Yes, but in a controlled and gradual manner, not like a full-throttle crash. ``` The landing sequence was roughly as follows: Orbit around the Moon (~1.6 km/s) Descent orbit Ignition of the main engine → continuous deceleration Transition from horizontal to vertical motion Finally: near standstill + slow landing This isn't a case of "flying straight at it and suddenly braking," but rather a precisely controlled thrust process lasting several minutes. 2. "It would spin like crazy!" Only if the forces don't act through the center of gravity. But that's exactly what the engineers took into account. The main engine is positioned so that the thrust acts through the center of gravity. Small control thrusters (RCS) immediately correct any rotation. In a vacuum, there are no external disturbances such as air turbulence. 👉 Result: The system is more stable than a helicopter in the air, not less stable. 3. Control: How it was kept stable The control system is based on classical physics equations: τ = I ⋅ α τ: Torque (generated by small control thrusters) I: Moment of inertia α: Rotational acceleration This means: Every rotation is detected (gyroscopes) Counter-torque is generated Rotation is stopped This isn't "hoping it will work," but a closed-loop control system. 4. "A computer from 1969... seriously?" The onboard computer was simple, but: It didn't have to do graphics, internet, or apps Only navigation and control → very focused Many critical parts were analog and redundant Important point: 👉 The computer didn't do everything on its own 👉 The astronauts could intervene manually at any time 👉 Houston only provided data, it didn't remotely control the spacecraft 5. Why does it look so "ridiculous"? Because it was built specifically for the moon: No atmospheric pressure → no need for a stable shell Every gram counts → thin structures Gold foil = thermal insulation, no "bling" No design for beauty, only function An airplane would be useless on the moon. The LM is more like a flying crane with a rocket. 6. The most important point If it were really as unstable as you think, then: test flights on Earth would have immediately shown that it doesn't work the astronauts wouldn't have come back But: 👉 All manned moon landings have worked 👉 The behavior corresponds exactly to the known laws of physics If you want, I can break down the entire landing sequence step by step or show you why the thing doesn't actually spin uncontrollably, even though it looks like it does.🤔

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

AI: It's important to distinguish that lunar modules (like the Apollo lunar landers) were never designed for a landing on Earth, and this was never attempted. Landing on Earth always took place in the separate command module. Here are the facts about testing and return: Test landings on Earth (Apollo): Before the lunar missions, the lunar modules were tested on Earth. However, since they couldn't fly in Earth's atmosphere (no aerodynamics, no heat shield), these tests were conducted using prototypes called Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs). These training vehicles, which used helicopter engines, were extremely difficult to fly, and Neil Armstrong was nearly killed during a test flight. No module landing on Earth: The lunar module consisted of two stages. The ascent stage was left behind in lunar orbit after the return flight to the command module and later crashed onto the Moon. No tests could be successfully completed, but it worked perfectly on the Moon right away? Hmmm... 🤔

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

The North Star NEVER moves. If you trust the former more than the latter, they've got you right where they want you.👍 https://t.co/JhOvpRW4tu

@benwehrman - ₿en Wehrman

The North Star NEVER moves. Earth and Polaris are both stationary. It's all of the other stars that move, rotating in a perfect circle around Polaris. This goes completely against what NASA tells us, but completely FOR what we actually observe with our own eyes and senses. If you trust the former more than the latter, they've got you right where they want you.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 presents Gabriel's motto as "Belonging," calling it beautiful. Belonging is described as the North Star—the only star in the sky that never moves—constant and unwavering, a guide.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Belong to Gabriel's motto. It's beautiful. Belonging? It's the North Star. That's the only star in the sky that never moves. It's constant, unwavering, a guide. It's the North Star. That's the only star in the sky that never moves.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

1/5 (I've divided the photos into 5 pages, just scroll down.😉) Domes – only for mosques, synagogues, and "churches" – well, their ancestors probably couldn't build flat roofs... such clowns... and on top of these places of "prayer" there's a symbol... simply a symbol without any technical purpose... and if that's the case – then the most widespread religion is that of the dome worshipper, autocrat, musician, and bird worshipper...😉

andreas_nigbur
Posted - April 15, 2026 at 3:15 AM
Saved - April 16, 2026 at 8:14 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I’m sharing claims that oil isn’t from dinosaurs but is abiotic, self-generating, and endlessly available. The fossil-fuel narrative is portrayed as a Rockefeller-era lie used to control prices and power. I’m told the Earth’s engine and tectonics run on oil, that “free energy” ideas were suppressed, and that genuine solutions prize nonviolent, self-sustaining communities.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

The Oil Lie Oil isn’t rare, it’s also not made from dead dinosaurs. It’s the 2nd most common liquid after water and is the Earth’s lifeblood. The scarcity myth was a Rockefeller lie to dramatically increase the oil price. The system tells you that oil is liquefied dinosaurs (biotic theory) so you believe it's scarce and pay whatever they want. Lie. Oil is abiotic—a liquid mineral generated by the Earth's own engine through high-pressure and high-temperature processes in the mantle. It is the lubricant for tectonic plates. Depleted wells from the 70s have been found to be fuller today than before. Why? Because the Earth's system pumps it from the subsoil. It doesn't run out; it regenerates. By extracting it on a massive scale, we are drying out the Earth's gears. This is why there are more earthquakes and creaking faults: we are stripping the oil from the engine. The fossil theory (coined by the Rockefellers and the Smithsonian in the late 19th century) is the greatest economic hack in history. If oil came from organic matter, it would have a biological signature (nitrogen, phosphorus, etc.) that would degrade. Crude oil is pure polymeric hydrocarbon. The Thomas Gold Thesis This expert (whom the system tried to discredit) proved that methane and oil rise from the depths of the mantle. Hydrocarbons are primordial constituents of the Earth's formation. By calling it fossil, they tell you it's a resource that's running out. If Humanity knew that oil is like tap water for the Earth, the geopolitics of the parasites would go down the drain in a single day.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

Oil is the literal blood of the earth—It doesn’t come from fossil fuels, it is ‘abiotic’ & self generating there is no shortage. The idea of fossil fuels only came from Rockefeller in order to make it appear scarce, thus more controllable. All previous forms of free energy travel —electric, steam, pneumatic (air compressed) were redacted to petrol in order for society to become dependent on their vampirism. It’s the same reason we never see any technological advancements with any other form of fuel—Vegetable Oil, Water, Hemp etc To think we’ve been driving off the remains of giant chicken ‘dinosaurs’ for the past century is asinine, comical even. Neither are really what you were taught lol. Everything presented in this reality is used as a means of hypnosis/control, once you realize that all their narratives begin to shatter—earth is naturally abundant & could easily provide for us all.... Fears & Lies. Profits & Control😉 - Ron Wilson

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 explains that petroleum wasn’t what they thought it was and asks if it’s just a mineral or how to classify its origin. He notes that when petroleum was first found, as motors and rails expanded in the early 1800s, oil shifted from a lubricant to a fuel, increasing its value. Rockefeller is described as the smartest man in the business at the time, making much of his money from both the transport and sale of petroleum. He describes the pricing challenge: oil has essentially no initial ground cost, so to raise prices, the industry would make it appear scarce, implying the need to conserve barrels. A pivotal event is highlighted: in 1892, at a Geneva convention of scientists determining what organic substances are, a definition emerged. The convention defined organic as a substance with hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, usually living things. Rockefeller reportedly sent scientists who stated that oil is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, thus derived from rotting formerly living matter, leading to the conclusion that oil is a fossil fuel. He claims the definition was used to describe oil as residue from formerly living matter, and that today petroleum is labeled a fossil fuel. He challenges the idea of fossil fuel by pointing out that there has never been a fossil found below 16,000 feet, while oil is drilled at depths of 28,000–33,000 feet daily, arguing this fact contradicts the fossil-fuel claim. He asserts the term “fossil fuel” is used to create the impression of scarcity and depletion, linking it to depletion allowances and the belief that oil supplies are running out. He contends the world’s oil supply is not near depletion and is the second most prevalent liquid on earth, with many deposits still untapped. Regarding pricing, he asserts that those in charge of petroleum aim to keep prices high, using the rhetoric of increasing scarcity to justify higher costs, including advocating for a world price rather than disparate national prices. He claims this pricing objective is part of a broader strategy, as seen in attempts to set a world price for oil and other commodities like wheat. He recounts a four-year federal staff energy seminar during the so-called energy crisis, attended by high-level officials and even Henry Kissinger. The purpose, he says, was to propagate a propaganda line to establish a world price for oil. He mentions Kantrowitz, head of Kantrowitz Laboratories, who, at the table with geologists, challenged the fossil-fuel assertion, dismissing the notion and prompting laughter at their expense. Kantrowitz reportedly urged the geologists to drop the fossil-fuel claim, noting it’s in all books and papers, tracing the idea back to the 1892 conference, described in a thick scientific encyclopedia by Dieben Ostrand Company. In summary, he argues there is a deliberate push to classify petroleum as a fossil fuel, supported by scientific and political maneuvering, with a substantial financial motive behind maintaining high prices and controlling markets. He concludes that “there’s a dollar sign behind almost everything.”
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: That petroleum wasn't what we thought it was, that it wasn't a fossil fuel, that it didn't come from fossil animals. Yeah. Is it just a mineral? Is it a mineral like any other mineral? Is that how it what would you say? How did it what's the origin of the petroleum? When they first found petroleum, because they were beginning to make motors and needed on axles of wheels and railroad trains and all that sort of thing, and remember trains started in the beginning of the nineteenth century, then oil went from just a lubricant to a fuel and it made it valuable. And Rockefeller happened to be the smartest man in the business at the time, but he made a lot of most of his money or much of it off the transport of the petroleum as well as selling it. But one thing they realized was you because oil is putting a price on oil is like putting a price on a pail of water, you know. No initial cost is in the ground, and in those days, they were some of it, almost what you'd call surface mining the oil. They didn't go down deep. So in order to get the price up, they hit on the idea that they would have to make it appear to be scarce, that they're that, boy, after we take the next few barrels out, we're probably going to have to close as well, know, that kind of thing. Well, a very fortuitous event. In 1892, there was a convention in Geneva of scientists to determine what organic substances are. Well, the definition of organic is a substance with hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, and so it's usually a living substance, a tree. You analyze a dead tree, hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, and grass, and so on, living things, animals. We are hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. So at this Geneva Convention, Rockefeller took advantage of sending some scientists over who said, oil, petroleum, is hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon. Therefore, it must be derived from the spoiling, the rotting of formerly living matter. And playing the game properly, when the scientific convention was over, they defined oil as residue from formerly living matter. Well, that makes it a fossil fuel. I don't know why they decided to use the word fossil, but it says formerly living matter is fossil. Well, of course, today, and another thing we should know, is that there has never been a fossil, a real fossil, found below 16,000 feet, and you can't argue that 16,000 is a level line because someplace the ground sinks and so on, but 16,000 is what the scientists say, 16,000. We mine oil, or we drill for oil, at 30,000, 33,000, 28,000 every day of the week. So right there, we rule it out that it isn't fossil fuel. It's called fossil fuel for the minds of the public to feel that it is an asset that is running out, being depleted. We talk about depletion allowance, which is a lot of you know? And, actually, if you know the world's oil supply, you know that it is not gonna run out for an awfully long time. It is the second most prevalent liquid on earth. And and we haven't begun to dig. Well, with all that background, you see, the people in charge of the petroleum business for perfectly reasonable business things, like any other man in the business, wants to keep his price as high as he can get away with. And the way to do is just say, well, there's more. We we the last barrel is gonna cost a thousand dollars, and then it's all done. And and they preach that stuff. What bothers me is that that in geology books, it's in there. The geologists say it's a fossil fuel. They they somehow, they've been bought. I I went to a four year federal staff energy seminar run by the government of the United States during the so called energy crisis. I was the participant that represented the railroad industry. The airline industry was there. Every AA, administrative assistant of senators and congressmen was there. The CIA was there. The Defense Department was there. The State Department was there. Sometimes sitting right in front of me in the row would be Henry Kissinger with his friend, the the head of Department of Defense. It's too bad. I can't put the names with them. But, anyway, people like that, top men in the government sitting there listening to the federal staff energy seminar. Well, what this was doing is for four years they were teaching a propaganda line to the leading people in this country and therefore to the leading people in the world when you include Schlesinger's, Kissinger and Schlesinger among others, and the object of it was, as Kissinger used in his own terms when it was time for him to speak, to create a world price for oil. In other words, not 30¢ a gallon here and 90¢ a gallon there, but let's get a world price. That's their goal, and they're trying to do that for wheat and everything else. We don't realize what the controls are, whether it's oil or some of these other things. Almost everything today is being categorized at the highest price they can possibly make it go. And so calling petroleum a fossil fuel is the basis for this system with respect to petroleum. And I don't if the name Arthur Kantrowitz rings any bell. Arthur Kantrowitz is the head of the Kantrowitz labs set up by the AVCO company near Boston Scientific Laboratories, and a great man in the scientific world. And Kantrowitz and I were sitting at a table at this seminar once, and the table happened to be all young college grad, PhD geologists. And so just to get a conversation started, I turned to Kentridge and I said, Arthur, what do you think about this foolishness of these speakers talking about fossil fuel? And it was kind of put up. He started laughing. He said, that gets me. He said he says, I don't he said, don't have a geology degree, but you have a thousand other degrees. And he said, I don't understand. You see, you'd think of these heads of these other fellows at the table, we did it on purpose, start listening, you know. And he asked he said, are you gentlemen he says, you're here at the meeting. Are you a gentleman by any chance a geologist? And one fellow, yes, I am. And the other he said, well, why don't you tell me? He said, why why is why is you know, he went on like that. We brought the house down because nobody could argue with Cantor was. He like he like Einstein. People aren't gonna and he told them right there. He said, just drop it. But it's it's in all the books and all the papers. But it started from that strange meeting in 1892, a scientific convention engine. I have a big, thick scientific encyclopedia put out by the Dieben Ostrand Company that's about fifteen years old now, but it has the whole story of the conference. It doesn't have the rock fell apart, but it has the whole story of how they straightened out organic chemicals and how it was all figured. And they've got petroleum right in there. Amazing. Amazing. So These aren't accidental things, you see. There's a dollar sign behind almost everything.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

This actually makes sense now😉 https://t.co/yRtn2o9yzO

Video Transcript AI Summary
This transcript explains how to make biodiesel as a survival fuel, using a sequence of described steps and household materials. The process begins with gathering animal fats, methanol (or alcohol), wood ash, and a separate funnel. The first step is to place the animal fat on a hot flat rock to melt it. Once melted, the fat is allowed to dry and then strained through a cloth to catch crumbs. Next, wood is burned to produce wood ash. The wood ash is mixed with some water and left to sit for a day, resulting in lye water. In a separate container, methanol is mixed with the lye. The narrative warns that this mixture is strong, and notes that the lye would dissolve in the methanol to form an alkoxide. With the alkoxide prepared, the next step is to warm the oil and pour the alkoxide mixture into it. The instruction is to stir or shake steadily for a while, then let the mixture settle. The chemistry is described as the liquid separating over the next few hours into two layers: crude biodiesel on top and a thick glycerin syrup on the bottom. The top layer, identified as diesel, should be carefully poured into a separating funnel, and water should be added to wash off unreacted lye impurities in the fuel. The impurities are said to settle at the bottom and then be drained out. The transcription concludes with the declaration that, via this process, biodiesel has been made. Key points emphasized include: the materials needed (animal fats, methanol or alcohol, wood ash, and a separate funnel), the melting and drying of fat, the creation of lye water from ash and water, the mixing of methanol with lye to form an alkoxide, the addition of this alkoxide to warm oil, and the transesterification that yields two layers (crude biodiesel on top, glycerin syrup on the bottom). It also highlights the washing step with water to remove unreacted lye impurities and the final separation of impurities from the biodiesel. The description frames biodiesel as “the ultimate survival fuel because it's easier to make than gasoline,” and names the final product as biodiesel produced through transesterification, with the separation of layers and purification steps explicitly described.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is how to make diesel if World War three destroys everything. Biodiesel is the ultimate survival fuel because it's easier to make than gasoline. Here's what you need. Animal fats, methanol or alcohol, wood ash, and a separate funnel. First off, place your animal fat on a hot flat rock and let it melt. Then let it dry and strain it through a cloth to catch the crumbs. Now burn some wood to get wood ash and mix the wood ash with some water. Let it sit for a day and voila, you've made lye water. Now mix your methanol with lye in a separate container. Carefully, this stuff is strong. The lye would dissolve in the methanol to form an alkoxide. Then warm your oil and pour your alkoxide potion into it. Stir or shake steadily for a while, then let it settle. Here comes the science. Over the next few hours, the liquid will separate into two layers, crude biodiesel on top and thick glycerin syrup on the bottom. This process is called transesterification. Carefully pour the diesel on the top layer into a separating funnel and add some water to wash off the unreacted lye impurities in the fuel. The impurities will settle down at the bottom then drain it out. And there you have it, homeboy. You just made biodiesel.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

Why do the Rich get Richer while the Poor remain Poor ? 💸 https://t.co/QPvS2fH8CO

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 describes fractional reserve banking. When you deposit $100, the bank keeps just $10 in reserve and loans out the remaining 90 at interest. That $90 gets deposited into another bank, which keeps 9 and loans out 81 at interest. This cycle repeats and is called fractional reserve banking, a system that legally allows banks to lend or invest 90% of your deposits, effectively circulating new money into the economy. Wealthy investors and big corporations are the first to get access to big loans at low interest rates. With this loan, they buy real estate, stocks and businesses before the money circulates through the broader economy. By the time those funds trickle down to the working class, they have already triggered inflation. The result? The banks collect interest by loaning out money that didn't belong to them. The rich use borrowed capital from the bank to acquire assets that skyrocket in value, easily covering their low interest loans. And the working class are required to pay higher prices for rent and food, because the money supply has expanded, while the number of actual goods are the same. And that's how the rich keep getting rich and the poor become more poor.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When you deposit $100, the bank keeps just $10 in reserve and loans out the remaining 90 at interest. That $90 gets deposited into another bank, which keeps 9 and loans out 81 at interest. This cycle repeats and is called fractional reserve banking, a system that legally allows banks to lend or invest 90% of your deposits, effectively circulating new money into the economy. Wealthy investors and big corporations are the first to get access to big loans at low interest rates. With this loan, they buy real estate, stocks and businesses before the money circulates through the broader economy. By the time those funds trickle down to the working class, they have already triggered inflation. The result? The banks collect interest by loaning out money that didn't belong to them. The rich use borrowed capital from the bank to acquire assets that skyrocket in value, easily covering their low interest loans. And the working class are required to pay higher prices for rent and food, because the money supply has expanded, while the number of actual goods are the same. And that's how the rich keep getting rich and the poor become more poor.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

Climate changes by its very nature. And yes, humans are contributing to pollution — that much is obvious. But the issue is being magnified and weaponized to an extreme degree, used as a pretext to erode our freedoms, monitor our every move, and accelerate the rollout of a digital control grid. When you examine the “solutions” proposed for rising oil prices or anything climate-related, ask yourself: do any of them actually reduce the power of authorities and increase the freedom of ordinary people? Or do they all move in the opposite direction? For the potential lockdowns ahead, here are two meaningful solutions: 1. United, peaceful non-compliance. 2. Build independent, self-sustaining communities capable of producing their own energy, water, and food.

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that war is a precursor for lockdowns 2.0 and that everyone should be aware of this. They reference the International Energy Agency, noting that the IEA “just released a 10 report on measures to take as the price of oil increases,” and claim that the IEA’s recommendation sounds “just like the COVID lockdowns.” The speaker asserts that the goal behind these measures is to track, trace, and control people, and then lists several examples of the proposed behaviors: stay at home, work from home, use public transport, no cars in the city, carpooling, use electric cars, reduce speed limits, and reduce air travel. They compare the IEA’s approach to how the WHO operated during COVID, asserting that the IEA is now asking people to do their part while they themselves fly on private jets and laugh in the audience’s face. The speaker suggests that as governments implement digital ID and digital currency, the next step will be to block individuals from buying gas or plane tickets if they exceed the recommended limit. They claim that this outcome was anticipated, stating that it is “part of their agenda,” and express the view that it is time to push back. The speaker warns against “the climate hoax” and frames it as something designed to control people, urging listeners to stay free.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as predicted, the war is a precursor for lockdowns two point o, and everyone must be aware of this. The International Energy Agency just released a 10 report on measures to take as the price of oil increases, and their recommendation sounds just like the COVID lockdowns. We know their goal is to track, trace, and control us. Just look at some of their measures. Stay at home, work from home, use public transport, no cars in the city, carpooling, use electric cars, reduce speed limits, reduce air travel. Just like the WHO did during COVID, the IEA is now asking us to do our part while they're flying on private jets and laughing in our face. And as governments are implementing digital ID and digital currency, the next step will be to block us from buying gas or plane tickets if we go over their recommended limit. We knew this was coming because it's part of their agenda, and now it's time to push back. Let's not fall for the climate hoax that's meant to control us. Stay free, my friends.

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

@RcWhite30474 There's only one thing to do: scroll on quickly.😉

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

@Karl_A_Maris FOLLOW THE MONEY, IT LEADS YOU TO THE TRUTH😉

@andreas_nigbur - Andy

@0Frah5 Exposing NASA Artemis II Photo and Video Fakery https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_n8iiiQmc0

View Full Interactive Feed